Was John McCain Right About the Surge in Iraq?
There is a debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, in which Barack Obama argues that the Surge has not worked and that he would never support the surge even if he knew what he knows now. Barack Obama has said he doesn’t know what would have happened if they had employed his strategy: pulling out of Iraq in March, a lost war.
This recent New York Times article clearly shows that while many in the media support Obama, most people seem to clearly support John McCain on the success of the surge.
When you read the chronology of the Iraq War, it is obvious that the Iraq troop surge started after January sometime between February and March the number of troops in Iraq increased from 132,000 to 152,000.
The Anbar Awakening was first thought up around 2005, meetings were held in 2006 as well as training for the Sunni tribes, and finally the Anbar Awakening Council was started sometime around March 2007. The first news reports of the Anbar Awakening Council seem to be around March 25th, 2007.
It is very clear that the Surge was before the Anbar Awakening Council. That doesn’t mean either strategy was weaker, it simply means that the Surge was created to support and make the Anbar Awakening Council successful. For anyone to argue that Sunni tribes alone forced Al-Qaeda to retreat, would have to be articulating that the troops in Iraq are cannon fodder and they simply stand around and barely do anything. It definitely seems to be disrespect to the men and women serving in the US Armed Forces.
The reality is, both the Anbar Awakening Council and the Iraq Surge were successful strategies but as General Patreaus has said the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops.
Barack Obama is undermining the Surge in Iraq by trying to find other reasons for the decrease in violence. I’m sure plenty of arguments could be formed in order for the Obama campaign to avoid admitting that the Barack Obama made a fatal mistake in advising a withdrawal of American troops.
Mr. O’Hanlon, of the Brookings Institution, said he did not understand why Mr. Obama seemed to want to debate the success of the surge. “Any human being is reluctant to admit a mistake,” he said, noting that it takes on added risk in a political campaign. (New York Times)
John McCain was right about the Surge and trying not to give him credit simply because he is Republican undermines his expertise on military history, military training, and his years served in the Senate. Trying to avoid giving credit to US troops who worked much harder with newer strategies to stop Al-Qaeda is disrespectful.
People are most welcome to debate whether invading Iraq was the best idea, they are welcome to criticize George W. Bush on his mistakes, but to blame John McCain for the mistakes of George W. Bush when we really are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, is simply not right. It is important not to judge candidates by their party but to judge their party by the candidates.
I find these latest "debates" as confusing. I agree with several analysts that Sen. Obama’s answer to the "If you had it to do over again…" is confusing and confounding. But even beyond that it seems this election will be won by getting those "swing" votes. The Democratic base is energized and I don’t much of anything demotivating them. At the same time opinion polls suggest that Americans have more positive impressions of the situation in Iraq. I have a growing suspicion that Sen Obama is "behind the curve" on this one. Maybe he’s become sensitive to the "flip flopper" label. However, He should consider the electorate’s frustration with leaders who won’t admit they were wrong (i.e. the Bush stubborness). As a registered Republican who voted for Bush in ‘00 and ‘04 I was increasingly irritated at his unwillingness to admit mistakes. Now I understand his handlers warriness of giving ammo to the opposition. It seems that stubborness didn’t gain him any friends and lost him a few.
Sen. Obama needs to watch out for the "Spice Girl" phenomenom. A great buildup and enthusiasm and then, when combined with a short attention span, a waning of enthusiasm and a questioning of "Is that all there is?".
By and large I think his foreign trip has gone well, no major screw-ups. He’s got to be careful to not "apologize" too much for America’s mistakes. And of course, when all is said and done, 200,000 cheering Germans feels good but none of them vote.
Oh yeah, in all of that I ignored the essential question. Yes, the surge and the coincident change in tactics made a difference. Opposition to the was shouldn’t blind one to that. But regardless of "what side you’re on" we should not keep looking back and saying "See I was right!" or "See, how wrong you were." We should say "OK now what"
And finally, I have to admit I’m struggling with the Obama logic of a surge in Iraq was a bad idea but a surge in Afghanistan is a great idea.
After doing some reading, I now believe McCain’s basic argument is being distorted. The conventional wisdom is that "McCain things the ’surge’ is the whole counter insurgency strategy." except that seems like a tag line, (which while he himself said something similar) that doesn’t well represent his basic argument. I think the real heart of the argument can be found in the very NYT article that Jonathan linked to:
"And the new counterinsurgency, the surge, entailed going in and clearing and holding, which Colonel MacFarland had already started doing. And then of course, later on, there were additional troops, and General Petraeus said that the surge would not have worked, and the Anbar Awakening would not have taken place, successfully, if they hadn’t had an increase in the number of troops."
So, really, what he’s saying is that this entire argument between ‘what made Iraq better, the Awakening or the Surge’ is specious. The two are interrelated, and you could have had one without the other. I’m not sure he’s absolutely right about that, but it is certainly a better way to phrase the argument than trying to tell people that the ’surge’ doesn’t mean additional troops or that the ’surge’ really started before additional troops went over there.
Yep I agree with Kevin and Chris, the Surge and Anbar is interrelated, BUT, regardless of what party you’re on, the Surge did make a difference… it was a factor… Thus Barack Obama should admit his mistake and move on!
To say that the surge isn’t as successful… or for Barack Obama to say that "I don’t know what would have happened if we applied my strategy (withdrawing from Iraq)" shows his ignorance on foreign policy and military history.
The Anbar Awakening predates the Anbar Awakening Council. Adding the Council to the timeline is pure spin.
The beginnings of the US side of Anbar Awakening started long ago with McMaster in Tal Afar.
"And finally, I have to admit I’m struggling with the Obama logic of a surge in Iraq was a bad idea but a surge in Afghanistan is a great idea."
Probably because you thought continuation of the Iraq occupation was good, and Obama disagreed with that.
Who does the American troops fight in Afghanistan?
Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Who does the American troops fight in Iraq?
Al-Qaeda and some of their insurgent allies.
Regardless of where you fight, you are fighting the correct war on Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda isn’t a country, its everywhere in which you select a battlefield.
Disagreeing with the Iraq Invasion is fine… You may even be right for disagreeing. However, requesting that US withdraw from Iraq is an open invitation to more terrorism.
And utsu, for you to understand…
If you had read Mao Zedong’s manual on Guerrilla Warfare, you’d know that to defeat Guerrilla Warfare you must completely increase troops in one area, not in multiple areas, and keep them there for a long time. The reason the Surge in Iraq worked is because instead of going from place to place ambushing terrorists, they have begun to ambush a place and stay there and keep the security there, this was only possible because of an increased amount of troops.
"Who does the American troops fight in Afghanistan?
Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Who does the American troops fight in Iraq?
Al-Qaeda and some of their insurgent allies."
But Al-Qaeda is hardly welcome in both territories. What I don’t know is whether they are more of a threat in Afghanistan or Iraq, but we are quite sure that they have a stable place in Pakistan, no? I guess our priority should be to keep supporting those that want to create a democratic and stable system of power, considering AQ thrive in chaos.
"Al-Qaeda isn’t a country, its everywhere in which you select a battlefield."
So attracting them to Iraq was a mistake. The US subjected Iraqis to new threats by not caring about the long-term effects of the occupation. Anyways, AQ is not a priority – they caused IX XI but they are unwelcome everywhere, probably due to the surge but also due to the spontaneous formation of other bodies of power, like the formation of Anbar councils that precluded the addition of more US troops. In short, AQ is rejected by civilians due to their stubbornness and violence and by those that rule provinces for being competition for power.
In that situation, they cannot escape to rural areas, subject the occupation power to slow-bleed poking, attract new forces from the rural population or adhere to Mao’s strategies in any considerable degree. They can’t muster overwhelming numbers or sow chaos in the cities either. AQ has a dangerous mission declaration, but they have no way to exercise their evil potential. They don’t have the VC’s situation. Of course, one could argue that you should make a push to strike them furhter when they are weak, but then you would leave other threats to Iraqi/Afghanistani stability freedom to act.
"However, requesting that US withdraw from Iraq is an open invitation to more terrorism."
Yes, AQ has the desire to rule Afg/Iraq, which they will be able to pursue once they don’t have the US to worry about. But they have no ability to prevent or invert their dwindling in stature, and this due to factors not necessarilly provided by US troops. AQ shouldn’t be the only threat considered when evaluating the time for withdrawal. Obama will speak to generals on the ground if he is president, so the 16 monts is merely a target that other people in authority already agree on. Should AQ appear to make a come-back then that would be enough to slow withdrawal.
Obama will leave counter-terrorism teams as well, to deal with particular threats that power-holders or the general public cannot counteract on their own. But it seems as if they can provide an atmosphere hostile to AQ on their own. I’m more worried about Iran’s influence and the tendency to group together within Iraq, to be loyal only to those that provide security and pride for your immediate clique.
utsu, I don’t see how you can assert that attracting al Qaeda to Iraq and fighting them there was a mistake, when experts pretty much universally agree now that al Qaeda has been severely curtailed through various efforts, including the Iraq conflict. There’s reason to view the Iraq invasion critically in terms of the difficulty (and extreme cost) that’s been incurred to stabilize the country, but there’s really no room to doubt that the effect against al Qaeda has been very positive from our standpoint (and conversely, to infer that a retreat by the US from Iraq would have emboldened and strengthened al Qaeda.)
The problem with the idea of focusing our efforts in Afghanistan exclusively is that al Qaeda really does have safe haven in the border region there- and it is physically impossible (due to terrain) and politically untenable for us to take out the remaining al Qaeda stronghold there. So instead, we used the flypaper approach to weaken the organization- attracting the terrorists to a theater where we could defeat them. Eventually then, the stronghold position in Waziristan will also fold, because the al Qaeda leaders can’t effectively plan attacks or gain any territory while they remain in bunkers. We’ve effectively cornered them, even though we still can’t take them out completely.
You mention the fact that the Iraqis eventually rejected al Qaeda. Yes, and that transformation was helpful and necessary to our success there. Hopefully the same will also prove true in Afghanistan to the extent that even the border region will cease to be a safe haven- but for the past 5 years, we have fought al Qaeda and had great success in the only way that has really been possible.
Was the cost worth it, and will we leave behind a sustainable situation in Iraq? No one can know that at this time, but the fact that the Iraq conflict has led to gains against al Qaeda that no one could have imagined possible a few years ago is indisputable- and certainly the critics who said that our efforts there were only strengthening the organization were proven grossly incorrect in their predictions.
"I don’t see how you can assert that attracting al Qaeda to Iraq and fighting them there was a mistake, when experts pretty much universally agree now that al Qaeda has been severely curtailed through various efforts, including the Iraq conflict."
If AQ was the reason for the US to go to war, you have to pursue them where they are, not attract them to a country where they are non-existent just to spread them out, and allow them to spread violence in a new country. That’s evil.
"So instead, we used the flypaper approach to weaken the organization- attracting the terrorists to a theater where we could defeat them."
Sure, but that wasn’t very nice to the Iraqis, now was it. This isn’t a turn-based strategy game – we’re talking about how Iraq was blown wide open and used as a sort of beaker into which the US could pour detergent upon the bacteria that is AQ. Strategically justified, morally psychotic. If AQ was in Iraq – by all means. But don’t play god.
"Eventually then, the stronghold position in Waziristan will also fold, because the al Qaeda leaders can’t effectively plan attacks or gain any territory while they remain in bunkers."
No, by cutting of their tendrils in Afghanistan and Iraq they are left with no possibility to grow. But you don’t invite terrorists for a tussle in a neighbourhood where they previously could not go. I realize that this (probably) wasn’t a rationale for the Iraq war but it is still no justification for the war. It’s a rationale for doing everything to remove violent, terrorist or secessionist elements from Iraqi territory and then getting out once Iraq can keep itself reasonably closed. Quite clever and disgusting – turn the fight against AQ into one of utilitarianism by luring them into the backyard of innocent people that will have to be defended- I realize that you are not advocating this ploy but you have to see that it is quite horrible. Creating your own moral committment by creating a battlefield among the innocent.
"We’ve effectively cornered them, even though we still can’t take them out completely."
You are saying that beating the AQ tentacle in Afg would not have sufficed to leave the leaders impotent – you had to create a new tentacle in Iraq in order to thin the forces. Well, now Afghanistan is slipping again, (a) million(s) of innocent Afg/Iraqi civilians are dead, infrastrucure has to be rebuilt (by conveniently American contractors with convenient auto-contracts and a conveient immunity to prosecution and investigation) in both countries and Iraq is now restructuring itself into a country that is more prone to internal conflict or influence from the enemies in Iran. I don’t care how bad Saddam was (after enjoying US support even when he "gassed his own people") or how shaken AQ is – the US had no business in Iraq and now it has made its own conditions for withdrawal (get rid of foreign elements that want to harm Iraqi democracy and stability) overlap with mine (I don’t want premature withdrawal either – the US has to clean up before it leaves, and it seems that job is getting finished). I am sickened by it all.
"and certainly the critics who said that our efforts there were only strengthening the organization were proven grossly incorrect in their predictions."
It’s not strengthening AQ – but do remember that the short-sightedness of the US in fighting he Soviets by arming the mujahedeen in Afg created you-know-who in the first place. No, not Voldemort.
Weakening a bad plant doesn’t necessarilly mean the soil you leave behind after the pruning is unhealthy for other bad plants. Wasn’t there a study that said the war was making America less safe – I don’t remember prefectly but I don’t think that assessment was based on AQ at all. Anyway, those higher-ups that ousted AQ could be pretty bad apples themselves. As for the civilians that rejected AQ’s recruitment efforts – I won’t speculate. AQ is not the only threat to America or its interests.
You’re welcome to argue that more people are angry at the US because of the Iraq War… You’re even welcome to argue that America may be less safe, but the fact remains that no terrorism has occurred since 9/11. And another fact is, regardless, the 9/11 event happened after the Clinton Administration, so Iraq had nothing to do with the fact that our enemies have hated us for decades not because of our recent actions.
They have hated us for longer than that. It’s simply their message to reject the West, because they believe that to fix their own problems they need to be closer to God, and they believe that they are not a superpower because of the infidel, and have adopted their own lies and theories built on this. If you had read "What Went Wrong?" by Bernard Lewis, New york best seller, you would know why they are attacking anything that resembles the West.
Reformers (in the Middle East) and Westerners and anyone that hints at being a tiny bit anti-religious, is the enemy for them.
In Afghanistan, they escaped, they ran off to Pakistan and other places and dispersed themselves. Some of them took strongholds in Pakistani mountains, but that doesn’t mean that they can run a war from there, they had to go to Iraq or Afghanistan whenever they can. It’s a holy war for them.
In Afghanistan there are mountains, caves… Humans can be seen via infrared technologies, and thus, terrorists hiding in caves simply does not work, which is why they left Afghanistan (mostly), but they sometimes sneak in and make surprise attacks. Terrorists love urban environments where they can hide amongst the populace. Civilians during the day, warriors in the night.
That’s why the Iraq War was difficult and the Afghanistan War was fairly simple, and even when there are terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, it cannot be even considered a war, because they are rare and ineffective.
The US did not invade Iraq to attack AQ… We invaded Iraq, because of Saddam’s hostilities, kicking out UN inspectors, threats based on reports of WMDs, and Iraqi officials meeting with uranium supplying nations. The real plan of the US is to bring freedom and democracy to each nation in the Middle East.
I know your argument will be "Well, why didn’t they take out all the other dictators?"… Because Saddam was the most hostile and alarms were needed to compel Senate to approve an invasion, and apparently, Saddam was the only one with such threats. Other dictators are friendlier, and thus are not an immediate danger. We can’t just declare war on every non-democratic country.
It should be a joint US and European Goal to Westernize nations in the East. The problem is, fixing nations are difficult.
Don’t tell me that Bill Clinton, George Bush, George W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan didn’t try to do the same…. This has been American policy for decades, since the Iranian Revolution. Iran is exporting radicalism and funding it. Eventually the world will have to deal with Iran, whether they want to or not.
Obama is an idealist. He wants to pull out, make friends, talk with enemy leaders without preconditions and tell them "hey, I’m a human, you’re a human too, let’s be friends…" but he doesn’t know these people, because Obama doesn’t study history. Obama doesn’t know history, you can tell by his lack of education… 57 states, "Let’s invade pakistan", lets meet enemy leaders without preconditions, Auschwitz not Buchenwald, the list goes on…
Obama believes that he can solve these problems by not pushing back. He’s looking at foreign policy like as if nations are like school children and he believes to solve the solution of 2 kids pushing each other is to tell one of them to stop pushing back. The reality is, Iran is intent on destroying America, regardless of what solution the American people think of. No argument will convince Iran that the West is good, it’s part of their belief.
"but the fact remains that no terrorism has occurred since 9/11."
IX XI was a fluke and US safety procedures have become meticulous. The terrorists did not even originate in Iraq, so that argument is moot. If the US had only invaded Iraq, THEN another terrorist attack would have been more probable.
But. If your enemies are not present in a country. You are not. Allowed. To bring the self-defense rationale for war. Into this country. By attracting. Your violent enemies there.
"because of Saddam’s hostilities"
You were OK with Saddam gassing his own people or waging nasty warfare on Iran before IX XI gave you a shot at stealing Iraq’s oil, which was the main priority.
"kicking out UN inspectors"
That Bush didn’t want in the first place, because no matter what they found the US would find another excuse for stealing Iraq’s oil. Even today they have changed the official rationale for the war many times they would have done so pre-invasion as well.
"threats based on reports of WMDs"
Which were made up or stolen from elementary school papers swiped from the internet so that the US could go in and steal Iraq’s oil.
"The real plan of the US is to bring freedom and democracy to each nation in the Middle East. "
HA! You think the people governing the US are decent people! Well, how about you start on Africa and the rest of Asia, then! How about you just admit that such ideas are not even motivations or objectives, they’re just secondary effects that are only necessary if they serve the only objective – TO SECURE OIL!
The US didn’t care for human rights or freedom in South America under Reagan. It didn’t care for minorities in Yugoslavia but instead fostered a war there so that they could install their own companies and private contractors after the bombing. They never cared about the rights of the Iraqi people or any other Arab before, abd the only reason they do so now is that they need legitimacy while stealing Iraq’s oil and preventing Iran from creating a Shi’ite alliance that controls too much oil.
There is no way in hell that the utilitarian motive can be proven to be genuine and non-opportunistic.
"Because Saddam was the most hostile"
After he had gassed his own people and attacked Iran (with American good conscience) most of the killing was done in Iraq by the BS embargo that killed 500K Iraqis. An embargo instigated by the US for no acceptable or moral reason. The US has been a bigger threat to peace in the region than Saddam could dream of being, even if you account for the attack on Kuwait. It was about the oil.
"alarms were needed to compel Senate to approve an invasion"
Ah, they needed a little alarmism. Red codes and bogus ties to AQ and whatnot. Saddam only became a bad guy when 9/11 made it possible to occupy and Iraq and take its oil.
"Other dictators are friendlier, and thus are not an immediate danger."
Like the US’ best friend in Uzbekistan that boils political dissenters alive or the many torture artists that Reagan supported in South America?
"This has been American policy for decades, since the Iranian Revolution."
You mean when you took away the elected and liberal Mossadegh and installed a dictator instead? Oil. The CIA educated the new torturers there like it educated the torturers in South America. Fort Benning, Georgia. The man that created chaos in Sudan five years after oil was discovered there was also educated in Georgia.
"Obama is an idealist."
I see an ideology in US policy as well. Namely fascism, neo-liberalism and imperialism. Operation Ajax, the support of Saddam when he was well-behaved, South America, Yugoslavia, Haiti etc. There has not been one noble or christian motive at the core of any US foreign policy decision for quite some time now. The only reason the US cares about democracy or peace in Iraq or Afghanistan is because it suddenly has to.
"talk with enemy leaders without preconditions"
McCain wanted to do this even after 9/11, he just changed his mind when he began campaigning.
"57 states"
Gaffe brought on by cognitive hiccup. Irrelevant, move on.
"Let’s invade pakistan"
If Pakistan thinks it can rest on its laurels and abuse the alliance with the US it has to think again. Obama’s idealism is not strictly left-wing, it’s an idealism of reality-based action justifie by the logic of self-defense rather than oil-stealing.
" lets meet enemy leaders without preconditions"
He’s not alone.
"Obama believes that he can solve these problems by not pushing back"
You mean he wants to talk himself to victory in Afg or Pakistan? Funny, because I am not seeing that. Possibly – and I am going out on a limb here – because you are flat-out lying. He will leave teams in Iraq that can stop terrorism teams from, for example, commitng terrorism in favor of Iraq sidling up to Iran. He will put more troops in Afg and hasn’t said a thing about withdrawal. He wants to focus on the place where YOU said the terrorists went.
BUSH has even sent diplomats to IRAN! Obama wants to continue CURRENT policy. The reason Obama wants some talks is because he doesn’t have to create a black-whitezeitgeist of paranoia, fear and extreme hostility. Why? Because he doesn’t want the US to do anything irrational out of fear or anger. Why? Because he wants to attack the right places. Why? Because he is not interested in controlling or stealing oil at the expense of innocent Middle Easterners.
"Iran is intent on destroying America"
And it can’t do that. If diplomacy does not work Obama has other approaches, because unlike the current sub-morons he has policies and goals that aren’t so stupid that they require rock-hard usage of a single, hard-line approach.
You can never depict Iran in terms so terrible that Obama’s policy will seem insufficiently hostile. Obama isn’t addicted to diplomacy the way his predecessor was addicted to megalomania and violence. If talks don’t work, Obama is ready for other approaches. His speech suggests that in the same way that McCain does. They are similar, but Obama has his positions for good reasons, and McCain just hangs on to Obama’s coat-tails while having none of the underlying principles.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uspakistan27-2008jul27,0,7917426.story
Lookie here – US is backbound by Pakistani officials in Waziristan, and are left looking at the people most probable to try and create a sequel to 9/11. Even after stopping them in Iraq (at the expense of securing Afghanistan) it would appear Pakistan doesn’t care too much about squeezing the eneimes of their ally.
Hey remember when McCain confused Shia and Sunni or when he said Iraq and Pakistan shared a border? Man, I am glad we have guy on top of his game running for president!
McCain did not confuse Shia and Sunni, he merely said that Al Qaeda was receiving aid from Iran… It was unproven, so he immediately apologized… However, this doesn’t mean that Iran isn’t funding Al-Qaeda, an ally in their fight against the West.
"However, this doesn’t mean that Iran isn’t funding Al-Qaeda, an ally in their fight against the West."
And an enemy in the fight over, like, the entire character of Islam… What they are probably doing is funding groups loyal to them in Iraq.
Don’t lecture me on my Islamic expertise, I have read many books about it. Sunnis and Shi’ites do fight yes, especially in Iraq, that doesn’t mean Iran wouldn’t fund Sunnis who want to fight their #1 enemy… America and Israel.
By the way you just admitted that withdrawing from Iraq would be a major mistake
"Don’t lecture me on my Islamic expertise, I have read many books about it."
Well, la-dee-dah. I guess I’ll take your word for it, Saddam really hated the west just as much as AQ but the two entities had no ties. I guess somehow Iran’s government and AQ has been united in common hatred where the bond between AQ and Saddam failed to bridge the many differences.
Seriously, I guess the question of an AQ-Iran link is at least debatable (as long as it isn’t linked to a bigger motive of destroying Iran just like you destroyed Iraq) but I had to chortle on your opening line there.
"By the way you just admitted that withdrawing from Iraq would be a major mistake"
Because Iran is only resisted in Iraq by the US, gotcha. If Iraq cannot be lectured enough to resist Iran then the cause is lost, because that means Iraq at least is strong enough to choose its own path, but needs to be totally controlled to obey US wishes.
Withdrawal is a must by the time the US has quenched the embers that might flare up into anti-government violence. It’s not the job of the US to ensure a west-leaning country country (just introduce the necessary tools for a hunky-dory situation, that should be enough) and it sure as hell has never been a priority for the higher-ups to make life better for anyone in the two invaded nations. All the US has to do is destroy any groups devoted to terrorism or violent secession and then focus on keeping Iranian infiltrators at bay (something that isn’t successfully or cost-effectively done with an army).